Prevalence and Treatment Outcomes of Marine-Lenhart Syndrome in Japan.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Marine-Lenhart syndrome (MLS) is now understood to be a combination of Graves' disease and autonomously functioning thyroid nodule(s) (AFTNs). The prevalence of the syndrome and suitable treatments for those living in iodine-sufficient areas are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to investigate the prevalence, treatment, and prognosis of MLS in Japan, an iodine-sufficient area.
METHODS
This study involved patients who visited our hospital between February 2005 and August 2019. Among patients with both thyrotoxicosis and thyroid nodule(s) larger than 10 mm, MLS and isolated AFTNs were diagnosed based on serum thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibody levels and scintigraphy using radioiodine or technetium-99m and thyroid uptake.
RESULTS
Twenty-two patients were found to have MLS, compared to 372 with isolated AFTNs and 8,343 with Graves' disease, during the period. Therefore, the rate of MLS cases was 0.26% among all patients with Graves' disease (22/8,343). Treatments and outcomes were assessed for cases of MLS (n = 18) and isolated AFTNs (n = 269). Antithyroid drugs (ATDs) were withdrawn in 27.8% of cases in the MLS group and 10.3% in the isolated AFTN group. There was no significant difference in the clinical outcome after ATD withdrawal between the 2 groups. However, the rate of hypothyroidism after radioactive iodine (RAI) administration was significantly higher in the MLS group than in the isolated AFTN group (42.9 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.005) despite similar doses of RAI.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of MLS among patients with Graves' disease was 0.26% in Japan. RAI therapy induces hypothyroidism more frequently than in those with AFTNs probably because RAI is taken up in the surrounding Graves' tissues.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.